{"id":151245,"date":"1976-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976"},"modified":"2019-02-16T01:30:39","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T20:00:39","slug":"beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","title":{"rendered":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 388, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 122<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBEANT SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/11\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  388\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 122\n 1977 SCC  (1) 220\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Constitution of India, Article 226--High Court's  rejec-\n\ttion of findings of facts: by departmental authorities, when\n\tjustified---Article 136, interference by Supreme Court, rule\n\tof practice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t property under dispute was put up for sale  at\t two\n\tdifferent  auctions by the Managing Officer, Amritsar.\t The\n\tRehabilitation\tauthorities cancelled the bid of  the  first\n\tauction purchaser Smt. Rup Kaur, holding that she had failed\n\tto  deposit the sale price in spite of issuing her a  regis-\n\ttered notice, and at the. second auction the appellant's bid\n\twas accepted.  In a petition filed under Art. 226, a  Single\n\tJudge  of the High Court found the findings of facts  to  be\n\terroneous and the impugned order void, and granted a writ in\n\tfavour of Smt. Rup Kaur.  On appeal, the decision was upheld\n\tby a Division Bench of the High Court.\n\tDismissing the appeal the Court,\n\t    HELD:  (1)\tThe High Court does not sit as\ta  court  of\n\tappeal\tto substitute its own judgment for that of  the\t au-\n\tthorities  which are empowered to give their decisions,\t but\n\tapart  from  jurisdictional  errors,  the  High\t Court\t may\n\tcorrect errors apparent on the face of the record.  An error\n\tto  be\tapparent must be one which does not  take  prolonged\n\targuments  to bring it to the surface.\tThe  Single  Judge's\n\tconclusion  that  provisions  of Rule 90  of  the  Displaced\n\tPersons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, had not\n\tbeen complied with, was not erroneous. [123C-D. 126E-F]\n\tS.L.  Hegde & Ors. v.M.B. Tirumale [1960] (1) SCR  890,\t ap-\n\tplied\n\t    Hiralal  Kher v. The Chief Settlement  Commissioner\t New\n\tDelhi [1961] P.L.R. 560, referred to.\n\t    (2)\t It is a settled rule of practice of this Court\t not\n\tto  interfere with the' exercise of discretionary powers  of\n\tHigh  Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution\t merely\t be-\n\tcause two views are possible upon the facts of a case.\t For\n\tinterference  by this Court, the question must\tinvolve\t at-\n\tleast a matter of public or general importance or the injus-\n\ttice suffered by an individual due to an error of law should\n\tbe  so\tgross as to touch the conscience of  this  Court  in\n\twhich case it would be deemed to be one of more than private\n\timportance.  [123E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969.
\n\t    (Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the  22-8-
\n\t1968 the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 427  of
\n\t1968).\n<\/p>\n
\tB. Sen and H.K. Puri, for the appellant
\n\tS.K.  Mehta, P.N. Puri and K.R.Nagaraja. for respondent\t No.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.
\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by–\n<\/p>\n
\t    BEG,  J.–This  appeal  by\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed
\n\tagainst the judgement of a Division Bench of the High  Court
\n\tof Punjab & Haryana. dismissing in litnine an appeal against
\n\ta judgment and order of a
\n\t       123<\/span>
\n\tlearned single Judge of that Court by which a Writ  Petition
\n\tmade to the High Court had been granted.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We have been taken through the very detailed judgment of
\n\tthe  learned single Judge where all the relevant  facts\t are
\n\tconsidered in detail.  The questions which have been  raised
\n\tbefore us are: firstly, whether the learned single judge was
\n\tjustified in considering the facts of the case and recording
\n\tcertain findings of fact without having even the  advantage’
\n\tof the record of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Settle-
\n\tment Commissioner, and other officers who had given  certain
\n\tother findings in favour of the appellant; secondly, whether
\n\tthe  learned  single Judge’s findings of fact  are  correct;
\n\tand, thirdly, whether any such apparent error was  disclosed
\n\tin  the\t proceedings  of the authorities  acting  under\t the
\n\tRefugees  Rehabilitation  and Settlement Act as\t to  justify
\n\tinterference by the High Court.\t It was urged that a mistake
\n\tapparent on the face of the record has to be one which\tdoes
\n\tnot necessitate delving deep into facts on record to discov-
\n\ter  it\tafter a re-examination of questions  of\t fact  which
\n\tought to be left to the authorities empowered to give  these
\n\tfindings.  It is true that the High Court does not sit as  a
\n\tCourt  of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that  of
\n\tthe authorities which are empowered to give their  decisions
\n\tin such cases.\tApart from  jurisdictional errors, the\tHigh
\n\tCourt may correct errors apparent on the face of the record.
\n\tAn error to be apparent must, according to a rough test laid
\n\tdown by this Court in S.L. Hedge & Ors. v. M.B. Tirumale(1),
\n\tbe  one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring  it
\n\tto  the surface.  These propositions are quite\twell  estab-
\n\tlished.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It is, however, also a settled rule of practice of\tthis
\n\tCourt  not to interfere with the exercise  of  discretionary
\n\tpowers of High Courts under Article 226 of the\tConstitution
\n\tmerely\tbecause two views are possible upon the facts  of  a
\n\tcase.  Furthermore, in order to induce this Court to  inter-
\n\tfere under Article 136 of the Constitution the the  question
\n\tmust  involve  at least a matter  of   public\tor   general
\n\timportance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to
\n\tan  error  of law should be so gross as to  touch  the\tcon-
\n\tscience of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be
\n\tone  of\t more than  private importance.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t case before us is one of a competition between\t two
\n\tauction\t purchasers of the same property put up for sale  at
\n\ttwo  different auctions by the Managing\t Officer,  Amritsar.
\n\tThe  first  was in favour of the respondent Smt.  Rup  Kaur,
\n\theld  on  20th August, 1959, and the second  in\t favour\t of.
\n\tBeant  Singh, the appellant, held on 10th May, 1961, on\t the
\n\tassumption  that the first auction could be cancelled.\t The
\n\tbroad  material facts, apparent from the  original  official
\n\trecord, which is now before us, are stated below.
\n\t    At\tthe auction sale on 20th August, 1959, held  by\t the
\n\tManaging Officer, Amritsar, Rup Kaur’s bid of Rs.  32,000\/-,
\n\tbeing  the highest, was accepted and this fact was  communi-
\n\tcated to her by a letter dated
\n\t(1) [1960] (1) S.C.R. 890.\n<\/p>\n
\t124<\/span><\/p>\n
\t11th  September,  1959,\t sent through her  son\tand  general
\n\tattorney  M.S.\tGrewal.\t This letter was  in  the  following
\n\tterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      “Dear Sir\/Madam,
\n\t\t\t    I am to inform you that your bid for Rs.
\n\t\t      32,000\/(Rupees  thirty two thousands only)  in
\n\t\t      respect of property No. B-XII-18-S-14 (Portion
\n\t\t      I\t  and  III)  Hide  Market Amritsar has\tbeen
\n\t\t      accepted\tas per terms and conditions  of\t the
\n\t\t      auction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    2.\tYou have executed an indemnity\tbond
\n\t\t      in lieu of the earnest money due from you\t for
\n\t\t      adjustment against the compensation admissible
\n\t\t      on  your verified claim(s).  For this  purpose
\n\t\t      please furnish if you have not already done at
\n\t\t      the time of auction the registration number of
\n\t\t      your compensation application, so as to  reach
\n\t\t      this office within seven days of the issue  of
\n\t\t      this letter.  In case you intend to  associate
\n\t\t      any  other claimants with you in the  purchase
\n\t\t      of  the  above mentioned property\t you  should
\n\t\t      also  submit  affidavits of  association\tduly
\n\t\t      completed\t by  you and by each of\t your  asso-
\n\t\t      ciates,  as  per\tspecimen  attached  to\tthis
\n\t\t      office within the period specified above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    3. The balance of the purchase money, if
\n\t\t      any,  found  due from you, after\tscrutiny  of
\n\t\t      your compensation application and that of your
\n\t\t      associates will be communicated to you in\t due
\n\t\t      course.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tYours
\n\t\t      faithfully,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t       District\t   Rent\t   &\n\t\t      Managing Officer,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      Amri\ntsar\".\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe  above mentioned letter showed that the  contesting\t re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tspondent being a displaced person had executed an  indemnity
\n\tbond and had to furnish some information so that  adjustment
\n\tof  the\t compensation  due to her may be  made\tagainst\t the
\n\tamount which she had to deposit.  What was that information?
\n\tOn the margin of the front page of this letter is a partial-
\n\tly  illegible  writing\trunning from top to  bottom  of\t the
\n\tprinted\t full-scap sheet on the original record.  With\tsome
\n\tdifficulty  the following part only can be read:   “You\t are
\n\trequired to submit the following documents regarding  provi-
\n\tsional possession within seven days from the receipt of this
\n\tletter failing which your case wilt be\t….  ”\t After “will
\n\tbe”  nothing is found written.\tIt is disputed\tbetween\t the
\n\tparties\t whether this writing in hand of the margin  existed
\n\ton the letter received by Smt. Rup Kaur’s attorney.   Howev-
\n\ter,  even  looking at the copy on the original\trecord,\t the
\n\tmeaning is not at all intelligible.  If it existed, it could
\n\tonly confuse and not enlighten the recipient as to what\t was
\n\tto be done.\n<\/p>\n
\t    An order was then passed, on 8th March, 1961, which runs
\n\tas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t125<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t      “ORDER,
\n\t\t\t    Smt. Roop Kaur through her attorney Shri
\n\t\t      M.S. Grewal the auction purchaser of unit\t No.
\n\t\t      B.XIII-18-S-14 (Portion I and III) Hide Market
\n\t\t      Amritsar\thas  failed to deposit\tthe  balance
\n\t\t      sale price amounting to Rs. 28,000\/- in  spite
\n\t\t      of issue of registered notice for 2-1-61.\t Her
\n\t\t      bid is, therefore, cancelled and earnest money
\n\t\t      forfeited.  Settlement Officer Jullndur may be
\n\t\t      requested\t to  deduct Rs.\t 3200\/-\t as  earnest
\n\t\t      money out of CA No. P\/J\/I0110.  The  applicant
\n\t\t      may  be  informed\t accordingly  and   property
\n\t\t      disposed of in the next sale programme.
\n\t\t      Announced.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      Dated 8-3-61.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   Distt.   Rent   &
\n\t\t      Managing Officer,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAm
\nritsar”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tThis order does not state that parties were duly heard.\t  It
\n\tis  disputed whether the notice mentioned in it, alleged  to
\n\thave been sent to Smt. Rup Kaur on 18-12-1960 asking her to.
\n\tappear on 2-1-1961, was received by the contesting  respond-
\n\tent.’ Even if the learned Single Judge’s finding that it was
\n\tnot received at all by her were not correct, the time  fixed
\n\tfor her appearance was too short.  Furthermore, the  allega-
\n\ttion that she had been called upon, presumably by the letter
\n\tdated 11-9-1959 to deposit Rs. 28,000\/- was, on the face  of
\n\tit, untrue.  Despite a report in her favour by the  Regional
\n\tSettlement  Commissioner,  who investigated  the  facts\t and
\n\treported to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, that she\t had
\n\tnot  been properly served, justice was denied to her by\t the
\n\tChief Settlement Commissioner on 26-6-1963.
\n\t    The\t learned  single Judge had examined  the  facts\t and
\n\tpointed\t out  other obvious illegalities at  earlier  stages
\n\tshowing\t that provisions of Rules 90 and 92 and 105  of\t the
\n\tDisplaced  Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation Rules\t1955
\n\twere not complied with in cancelling the sale.\tAccording to
\n\tRup Kaur, who filed some application on 9th May, 1961,\twhen
\n\tshe  learnt what had happened, she had also filed an  appeal
\n\tagainst the order of 8th March, 1961, and made a request for
\n\textension of time for payment of the balance of the purchase
\n\tmoney,\tbut,  on 14th June, 1961, the  following  order\t was
\n\tpassed\tby  the\t Assistant Settlement  Commissioner  on\t her
\n\tappeal:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “This is an appeal against the order  of
\n\t\t      Distt. Rent & Managing Officer Amritsar  dated
\n\t\t      8-3-61 whereby he cancelled the appellants bid
\n\t\t      and forfeited the earnest money on account  of
\n\t\t      his  failure to deposit the balance  price  of
\n\t\t      property No. B. XIII-18-S-14 (Portion I & III)
\n\t\t      Hide  Market Amritsar purchased by him at\t the
\n\t\t      open  auction within the specified time.\t For
\n\t\t      all  intents and purposes this appeal  is\t for
\n\t\t      extension\t of  time to  deposit  the   balance
\n\t\t      purchase price.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      126<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Extension  of time is an  administrative
\n\t\t      matter for which no judicial action is  called
\n\t\t      for.     Dismissed.   Inform   the   appellant
\n\t\t      accordingly”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t learned  Single Judge pointed out  that  the  above
\n\tmentioned order of the Appellate authority was also void for
\n\tcontravening the provisions of Rule 105 as interpreted by  a
\n\tFull  Bench of the High Court of Punjab in Hira Lal Kher  v.
\n\tThe Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi(1), so that  it
\n\twas  the duty of the Settlement Commissioner, to fix a\tdate
\n\tfor  hearing  and  to inform the ‘appellant\tit  was\t not
\n\tdischarged.   Apparently,  the appeal  was  decided  without
\n\tinforming  the contesting respondent Smt. Rup Kaur when\t her
\n\tappeal\twould  be heard.  Rule 105, which was  thus  contra-
\n\tvened, provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “105.  Provisions  of Order XLI  of\t the
\n\t\t      Code  of Civil procedure apply to appeals\t and
\n\t\t      revisions.Except\t as   otherwise\t   expressly
\n\t\t      provided\tin  the Act or in these\t rules,\t the
\n\t\t      procedure\t laid down in order XLI of the\tCode
\n\t\t      of  Civil\t Procedure  1908  (Act\tV  of  1908)
\n\t\t      shall,. so far as may be applicable, apply  to
\n\t\t      the  hearing  and\t disposal  of  ap.peals\t and
\n\t\t      revisions and the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    Furthermore, extension of time was not just an “adminis-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\ttrative matter”.  The question whether Rup Kaur had made out
\n\ta  case\t for  it or not should\thave  been  quasi-judicially
\n\tconsidered  and decided. Indeed, if provisions of the  Civil
\n\tProcedure  Code were applied to these appeals and  extension
\n\tof time was only a relief sought, the discretion to grant it
\n\tor refuse it had to be judicially and judiciously exercised.
\n\tThe order was made on an apparently wrong assumption.
\n\t    The\t learned single Judge had restored the\tposition  to
\n\twhat it was when the letter dated 11th September, 1959,\t was
\n\treceived by M.S. Grewal, the son and general attorney of Rup
\n\tKaur,  and had directed the Managing Officer to\t proceed  in
\n\taccordance with Law. After having heard Learned Counsel\t for
\n\tboth  sides  at some length, we are not satisfied  that\t any
\n\tinjustice has been done to the appellant who will, no doubt,
\n\tget  back  whatever money he may have deposited.  We  think,
\n\tthat, in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said
\n\tthat the learned single Judge’s conclusion, that  provisions
\n\tof  Rule 90 had not been complied with in dealing  with\t the
\n\tcase of Rup Kaur, who had suffered injustice, was erroneous.
\n\tThe learned Judge had stated his conclusion as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “A\tmere  reading  of  the\tabove-quoted
\n\t\t      provision\t shows\tthat one of  the  conditions
\n\t\t      precedent\t   entitling   the    Rehabilitation
\n\t\t      Authorities to cancel the sale and to  forfeit
\n\t\t      the  initial  deposit is the  service  on\t the
\n\t\t      auction  purchaser  of a notice  specified  in
\n\t\t      sub-rule (11), sub-rule (12) or sub-rule\t(13)
\n\t\t      of   rule.  90.\tThe  petitioner\t  admittedly
\n\t\t      complied\twith the requirement of\t the  notice
\n\t\t      under sub-rule (12) of rule 90 (Annexure\t“F”)
\n\t\t      and no notice in terms of the requirements  of
\n\t\t      subrule  (13) of rule 90 was  ever  admittedly
\n\t\t      issued to or
\n\t\t      (1) (1961) P.L.R. 560.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      127<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t      served\ton   the   petitioner.\t In    these
\n\t\t      circumstances, the Rehabilitation\t Authorities
\n\t\t      has   no\t  jurisdiction\t  whatsoever\t for
\n\t\t      cancelling   the\t sale  in  favour   of\t the
\n\t\t      petitioner  on account of alleged\t non-payment
\n\t\t      of  the balance of the purchase price and\t for
\n\t\t      forfeiting  the initial deposit made  by\ther.
\n\t\t      In  this\tview  of the  matter,  the  impugned
\n\t\t      orders  cancelling the sale in favour  of\t the
\n\t\t      petitioner and forfeiting her initial  deposit
\n\t\t      are  wholly  without jurisdiction\t and  cannot
\n\t\t      possibly\tbe sustained.  Errors of law in\t the
\n\t\t      orders  of the Chief  Settlement\tCommissioner
\n\t\t      and  the order Rehabilitation Authorities\t are
\n\t\t      apparent\ton their face  inasmuch as the\tsaid
\n\t\t      orders have been passed in absolute  ignorance
\n\t\t      of   the\tstatutory  provisions  referred\t  to
\n\t\t      above”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the\tview
\n\ttaken  by  the High Court.  Consequently,  we  dismiss\tthis
\n\tappeal.\t But, in the circumstances of the case, the  parties
\n\twill bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.R.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\n\tmissed.\n\t128<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 388, 1977 SCR (2) 122 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: BEANT SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/11\/1976 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SINGH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBeant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2131,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\",\"name\":\"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976","datePublished":"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976"},"wordCount":2131,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976","name":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T20:00:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beant-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-november-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}